Education report uncertainty over nursery school independence

The latest report to Education Committee (report 539-2011) hints at the prospect of future integration of Park Place Nursery into the school building of Park Place Primary school. It states that the nursery's move to the new West End campus will reduce the number of nursery schools in the city (§ 4.2.8) and later (§ 4.3.2) proposes:

"There may be scope to integrate such schools into primary schools where it is practical to do so."

Does this imply that the nursery school might in future be relegated to a nursery class within the primary school?

Additionally, the report states that the Primary School Working Capacity of the new West End campus is 618, and with a combined pupil roll for Sep 2011 (the campus is not due to open until 2012) at 434, claims this is 70.2% of the Sufficiency on Working Capacity.

However, the previous Director of Education had assured parents that the maximum roll of the West End campus would be capped at 450, which would mean the Sufficiency on Working Capacity percentage should be quoted as 96.4%.

In other words, from the start, the new campus will be operating almost at full capacity.

If the current director of education now claims the Primary School Working Capacity of the campus is indeed 618, then he must find an additional 0.4 ha, that is 4000 sq. m., if the campus is to comply with the government's requirements stipulated in the School Premises (General Standards and Requirements) (Scotland) 1967 and as amended.

What are the director's plans for Park Place Nursery, and where will he find the additional space necessary for a campus with capacity for 618 pupils?

DCC Education Convener claims size issue was a myth

During a ceremony at the new west end school campus on 31/08/11 (11 mins into the broadcast), DCC education convener, Liz Fordyce, made this statement (transcribed from the video footage):

"It was built to house 1000 young adults, because that's what teenagers are, it was secondary pupils, and if it held a thousand secondary pupils, going from department to department, then it would be big enough to hold two primary schools that are not going to have anything like a thousand pupils between them, so it wasn't ever going to be too small to house two smaller primary schools, so it was a myth.

And the people who complained about it they had all sorts of different reasons for not wanting it, and they tried their best but now they realise that, yeah, this is a good idea, this is a good thing for the young people."

If the education convener had read the School Premises (General Standards and Requirements) (Scotland) 1967 and as amended, she would have noticed:

(2) Every secondary school shall have a site of not less than the area specified in Table II according to the number of pupils for which the school is designed except where the provisions of regulation 7(6) apply.

For a site with 751-1000 pupils, this equates to a site size of 2.4 hectares - the new school site is 1.27 hectares, almost half the minimum requirement. Note that each additional 100 (pupils) over 1000 would require an additional 0.1 hectares.

And that's not including provision for playing fields....

So either the former Harris Academy Annexe failed to comply with the government regulations - by a significant margin - or the regulations did not apply when the building was erected.

Or the city council of the time had also applied to government for dispensation from said regulations, just as the current city council did to get special permission for this proposal to proceed. The council's application and the decision from Scottish Ministers may be found here: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/91982/0091412.pdf and in it, the former director of education confirms:

1.5 The consent of the Scottish Ministers is required because the area of the site proposed for the joint campus does not meet the requirements in Regulation 7(1) in respect of two separate schools.

So which is it, and precisely which "people who complained about it" now 'realise' that it's a good idea?

Deputation to Development Management Committee - Monday 20 September 2010

Thanks go to all the elected members who asked a number of probing questions of the council officers. The planning application was approved and the project board has convened several times since to progress these plans.

We thought it might be of interest to share the text of the deputation presented by Mr Kiran Oza to the Development Management Committee on 20 September 2010.

Note that the first point raised by this deputation didn't need to be raised as the director of city development, Mr Mike Galloway, stood up first to apologise for an oversight in recording the application as 'local' rather than 'major', but claimed that in all other respects the application has been processed as if it were a major planning application....

"Lord Provost, Depute Lord Provost, Convener, Councillors: thank you for the opportunity to address the committee today. I have 7 points to make, each of which addresses a material consideration in respect to planning.

1. First of all, there is a 'Major' flaw in the report by the director of city development.

This planning application (10/00406/FULL) has been classed as a 'Local' planning application, which is contrary to The Town and Country Planning (Hierarchy of Developments) (Scotland) Regulations 2009. Regulation 2(1) states in paragraph 9 of the description of development that where "The gross floor space of any building, structure or erection constructed as a result of such development is or exceeds 5,000 square metres", shall be categorised as a "major development". Circular 5 2009 Hierarchy of Developments advises that education developments of projects fall under paragraph 9 of the regulation and also stipulates "there is no scope for local interpretation of what constitutes a major development or a local development either by planning authorities...individuals...or other stakeholders in the planning system."

The planning application before you states that the proposed floor space for this non-residential development for School Education is 5,600 sq.m., which exceeds the 5,000 sq.m. stipulated in the regulations and therefore should be classed as a 'Major development'.

What is the impact of this error? My second point...

2. As a result of this error, the objection that "pre-application consultation was not carried out appropriately" could not have been given due consideration since the director's report incorrectly claims, "As this is not a defined major application there is no statutory requirement for preapplication consultation." Similarly, the case officer may not have fully scrutinised the statutory requirements, such as the Design and Access Statement, since the report also claims, "There was not a mandatory requirement to submit a Design and Access Statement for this development."

3. From the early days of this project, including the previous director of education's proposal to the Education Committee in January 2009 (report 69-2009), through subsequent consultations and meetings, to both versions of the planning application form (the one with the council owning the land, and the 'corrected' version stating that Foxmead Ltd is the current owner), the site size has been 1.27 hectares, in other words 12,700 sq.m.

Miraculously, in the Design and Access Statements (again there were two variants of this), the site has grown to 1.35 hectares, in other words 13,500 sq.m., and this is repeated in the report before you today.

From where has this additional 800 sq.m. appeared? If it is indeed the correct area, then it has a material impact on this acknowledged "tight site" and makes a difference to the range of possible designs. For example, if it is adjacent to the proposed 600 sq.m. multi-surface outdoor playing area, adding 800 sq.m. makes this a much more viable proposition to parents and others who wish for good outdoor provision for the children of this new school.

4. The inclusion of a formal consultation with Sportscotland is not material to this development and should not be included in the director's report. Sportscotland are a statutory consultee only if there is will be a loss of playing field provision in excess of 0.2 hectares (2000 sq.m.). In written correspondence with Sportscotland on 21 April 2010, the council states, "the former blaes pitch adjacent to St Joseph's Primary has not actually been used as a sports pitch for at least 20 years."

If this is the case, then there is not a loss of playing field of 0.2 hectares or more, and Sportscotland should not have been consulted not should their views have been included in the director's report today.

If the area has indeed been used as a sports pitch in more recent times, as attested to by:

• the fact that satellite imagery (Google Earth, DD1 5HX, historical imagery for Dec 2001) over the last 10 years shows football goalposts at either end of this 'car park',
• the fact that the school has until very recently held its annual Sports Day on this pitch,
• the fact that the children of St Joseph's enjoy both football training and cross country training on this pitch,

then Sportscotland may well revert to their previous intimation of 16 March 2010 that they would be likely to object to planning. In the same correspondence, Sportscotland proposed that a 60m x 40m Synthetic Turf Pitch on the St Joseph's blaes pitch "may be a better alternative to Victoria Park. The site is enclosed therefore it would be easier to monitor the children."

Consider also that the proposal by the Council for a 600 sq m synthetic pitch for 430 pupils is a mere 25% of the minimum size synthetic pitch that is recommended by SportScotland for schools of this size.

In case you are wondering that is 1.4 sq m per child.

5. Regarding the potential noise from the proposed buildings, the director's report notes the Noise Impact Assessment, which considers the potential impact any noise from any mechanical plant serving the schools may have on residents in the vicinity. This NIA concludes that any noise would fall within the NR25 and NR35 requirements. However, it is clear from the report submitted that the plant proposed can not satisfy this condition. How could the report come to the conclusion it has on the basis of the information provided. Does the noise condition (9) not contradict the conclusion in the report, if not then the condition would not be required!

In addition, this completely fails to take into account the noise impact of children playing in the playground and the multi-surface 5-a-side pitch. Some 430 primary children and upwards of 70 nursery children will be outdoors during playtimes and lunch breaks. Even if these are staggered to accommodate pupil numbers in the outdoor space and dining hall facilities, the noise level, though less, will be for a longer duration. It may surprise those present to consider how modern legislation can curtail the ability of children to play boisterously outside as was recently reported in Barlby Primary School.

Also, the recent planning application by the High School of Dundee, 10/00397/FULL, was refused on the premise that it would have:

"an adverse impact upon the level of environmental quality afforded to neighbouring residents by virtue of noise disturbance from the use of the all weather pitches, road safety from increased traffic, light pollution from the proposed flood lights and visual amenity due to the appearance of the proposed flood lighting columns and fencing."

The proposals were therefore deemed "contrary to the requirements of Policy 1 (Vibrant and Sustainable Communities) of the Dundee Local Plan Review 2005."

It is presumed that the same material consideration will be given to the planning application before you today.

6. The report compiled by Scottish and Southern Electricity found that the site is not currently affected by electro-magnetic fields. However is it not the case that EMF can be attracted and thus the danger here is that the building and internal electrical equipment will attract and even amplify the EMF from the adjacent electricity substation?

7. The conditions attached provide for an investigation of the contamination present on the site. This is an acknowledgement that the site is contaminated. Is it therefore wise of to approve a school on the site prior to knowing what contamination is present on the site? If this application is moved for approval, the decision should state that a condition of the approval is that the excambion must not proceed until conditions 2 and 3 are satisfied."

Planning application to be decided 20 Sep 2010

The proposed West End schools' planning application is finally to come before Development Management Committee on Monday 20 September 2010.

The report, which recommends the planning application for approval, can be read on the council website at: http://www.dundeecity.gov.uk/reports/agendas/dm200910.pdf

If the application is approved by our elected members, then the St Joseph's car park and green spaces could be transferred to Al-Maktoum Foundation ownership soon after.

Where will parents, teachers and church parishioners park and where will the children play, during and after school?

Janny's folly?

As reported on this blog, the council's deadline for comments on its planning application for the new west end school was extended to 16 August 2010, perhaps in part because the application was updated to admit that the land is owned by Foxmead Ltd (Jersey) rather than by the council, as originally claimed.

It seems that a related application to demolish the janitor's hut on the Logie site was also incorrectly completed. It has also been updated (06 August) indicating that Foxmead Ltd (Jersey) own this land; the application had previously claimed that the council was the only owner of the land.

Was this another administrative error?

Why has the deadline for comments not been similarly extended for this application?

If this application is to be determined by 23 August, why did it not appear in the agenda/reports for Development Quality Committee yesterday (16 August)?

Why does this renewed application state there will be no car parking spaces after development, when the corresponding application for the new school clearly states there will be 49 car parking spaces - is this yet another administrative error?

Playtime at the new West End school?

We were wondering what playtime at the new West End school might be like, so we took one of the sketches from the council's planning application 10/00406/FULL, as viewed from the south-east corner, and added 400 children using the council's sketch of 4 children playing as a stamping tool.

Here's what we discovered, before and after modification. What do you think? What will the noise levels be for residents and nearby businesses? Will the children have enough space to play - or even move?

Full planning application 10/00406/FULL now online

The full planning application for the West End Schools project is now available on the city council's Public Access website:

http://bwarrant.dundeecity.gov.uk/publicaccess/tdc/DcApplication/application_detailview.aspx?caseno=L4IOIMGC03500&searchtype=WEEKLY

Comments and objections should be registered using the Submit Comments link online or in writing to the city council by 15 July 2010. According to the Applications for Planning Guidance Leaflet (p7), the address to send written objections is:

Director of City Development,

Dundee City Council,

Floor 15,

Tayside House,

Dundee, DD1 3RB.

Please note: The formal Planning Register which contains all planning application details is available for public inspection from 8.30am to 5pm Monday to Friday at City Developments Department reception, Floor 2, Tayside House, Crichton Street, Dundee DD1 3RB (information obtained from:http://bwarrant.dundeecity.gov.uk/publicaccess/tdc/tdc_home.aspx)

Proforma objections available to download

Following the public exhibitions on 1st and 3rd April 2010, the council has invited comments and objections from members of the public, to be sent to Gillian Ross Pond. The deadline for these is:

Monday 26 April 2010

Comments can be posted, telephoned or emailed:

Gillian Ross Pond
Floor 8 City House
Overgate
Dundee
DD1 1UH
Telephone: 01382 435161 or
email: gillian.rosspond@dundeecity.gov.uk

We have prepared a list of suggestions that you may wish to send or select items where you share our objections.

Note that if you are sending a letter by post, this should be posted by Friday 23 April to ensure delivery by Monday. We understand that comments by email will also be accepted but to ensure that these are valid, we advise including your full name and address so that the council can check that your submission can be authenticated.

You can download a copy of our proforma (shown on the left hand side of this website) or you can select from the following list of objections:

With regard to the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 as amended by The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Regulations 2008, I wish to state my objections to the approval of any plans for the proposed development of a new West End of Dundee primary School in Blackness Road, on the following grounds:

1. I object to this proposal due to the noise impact on the area.
2. I object to this proposal due to the traffic congestion that it will create
3. I object to this proposal due to the risks to child safety that the traffic congestion will create
4. I object to this proposal due to the lack of adequate car drop-off areas
5. I object to this proposal due to it failing to comply with Regulation 8 Playing Fields of the School Premises (General Requirements and Standards) (Scotland) Regulations 1967 and as amended
6. I object to this proposal due to the lack of a synthetic pitch which meets sportscotland minimum requirements as per School Playing Fields Planning and Design Guidance document ISBN: 978 1 85060 497 6
7. I object to this proposal due to it failing to provide children with the opportunity to reach their potential in external sports
8. I object to this proposal due to the impact on specialist PE curriculum if children have to travel to/from Victoria Park
9. I object to this proposal due to the loss of playing field provision already present at St Joseph’s (and recognised by council documents and by sportscotland)
10. I object to this proposal due to concerns over how Victoria Park could be utilised for playing fields if there is no dedicated provision of park land
11. I object to this proposal due to concerns over the safety of children walking to/from Victoria Park
12. I object to this proposal due to the risks of having a gym and kitchen on the top floor
13. I object to this proposal due to the gym space of 324 sq.m. needing to be divided by a curtain and thus being a smaller space than for St Joseph’s school at present
14. I object to this proposal due to the inadequate internal gym facility, which fails to meet government targets of a minimum 2 hours specialist PE per child per week
15. I object to this proposal due to the increased noise impact in the classrooms of having a gym above the classrooms
16. I object to this proposal due to the classroom sizes being smaller on average than the existing classrooms at St Joseph’s
17. I object to this proposal due to the contamination on the site, especially since the lack of a basement facility confirms council concerns about using underground space
18. I object to this proposal due to the nearby "very large electricity sub-station" as quoted from a report from the director of planning and transportation in 2006 (06/00103/FUL)
19. I object to this proposal due to the loss of school buildings at St Joseph’s and Park Place constituting a loss of provision for schools in the West End when space should be preserved for future generations
20. I object to this proposal due to the rising cost estimates (was £10.3m now £11.5m and will rise further) in a time of financial crisis where the money would be better spent refurbishing existing schools and saving jobs
21. I object to this proposal due to the choice of site failing to provide an open aspect for the children
22. I object to this proposal due to the site use being contrary to the Council Local Plan showing the site (H21) marked for housing
23. I object to this proposal as it fails to achieve the maximum market price for Council Taxpayers in the sale of the St Joseph’s School site and surrounding land
24. I object to this proposal due it failing to meet the unconditional provisos laid down by the Catholic Church "The Diocese sets out the unconditional provisos and conditions ..., that the joint site enjoys the acknowledged agreement of the school communities concerned...", as quoted in section 4.3 of HMIE report dated November 2009
25. I object to this proposal due it having failed to meet the recommendations "The council should also seek to reassure parents about the levels of contamination of soil at the proposed site and the level of danger from the nearby electricity sub-station", as quoted in section 6.2 of HMIE report dated November 2009
26. I object to this proposal due it having failed to accommodate the clearly stated wishes of the St Joseph’s parents in the recent Parent Council Questionnaire
27. I object to this proposal because it discriminates against disabled children by discouraging participation by disabled children in activities in a public building due to the multi storey nature of the building

What does 'dedicated' mean?

In December 2009, Scottish Ministers granted qualified approval to Dundee City Council to proceed with the schools project, making special reference to the HMIe recommendations to:

"... clarify its proposals for use of Victoria Park by giving a commitment to how it would dedicate part of the park [our emphasis] for use of the two primary schools and a firmer indication of what pitches or sports areas might be laid out for their use at various times of the year."

The specific request from Schools Directorate to the director of education was to:

"... [make] clearer its plans and commitment for dedicated use [our emphasis] of part of Victoria Park as playing fields by the two schools."

There followed a series of council comments in the local press which failed to conclude with any clarity over the council's plans, so at the 1st Project Board meeting on 27 January 2010, West End councillors asked the council to clarify said proposals and were told that this would need to be referred back to HMIe and Scottish Government to establish what was meant by the use of the word 'dedicated'.

At the 2nd Project Board meeting on 25 March 2010, the council was still unclear, despite several conversations between the director of education and HMIe, while councillors and the EIS union representative felt the meaning of 'dedicated' was quite obvious.

For reference, the Compact OED defines the meaning of 'dedicated' as:

adjective 1 devoted to a task or purpose. 2 exclusively assigned or allocated to a particular purpose.

We have obtained, under Freedom of Information, evidence that the director of education wrote to Schools Directorate on 15 September 2009 to state:

"... I am proposing that playing fields will be available in Victoria Park, approximately quarter of a mile distant from the proposed location of the school. This is a large public park, and so the area available will easily exceed 0.6ha."

Schools Directorate in turn wrote to HMIe on 24 September 2009, as part of requesting HMIe advice for the Application for Ministerial Approval, to advise:

"Playing fields of the requisite size for two primary schools (0.6ha) will be carved out of Victoria Park [our emphasis], approximately a quarter of a mile away"

The council appears to be unable to determine its own understanding of the word, therefore they have invited HMIe to attend the 3rd Project Board meeting on 27 May 2010.

Let's hope that Her Majesty's Inspectors for Education understand the meaning of this word.

Posters from public exhibition 1/3 April

Although well-attended, the public exhibition was held on the last day of school term and over the Easter weekend, so there may be a number or people who were unable to visit Blackness Library. The council officers were asked for permission to photograph the posters to share with others and they have also been asked if the posters could be made available on the council website. The council officers agreed to both requests.

Since comments on the planning application are to be submitted by Monday 26 April 2010, we are sharing the photos taken - apologies for the poor quality of these images, but hopefully they give a flavour of the exhibition.

The pictures may be viewed here: Public Exhibition

Shona Robison and Scotland's "Obesity time bomb"

Shona Robison is the SNP Minister for Public Health and Sport in the Scottish Government.

She has just launched the strategy document, "Preventing Overweight and Obesity in Scotland - A Route Map Towards Healthy Weight" to tackle Scotland's “obesity time bomb” which specifically includes:

...working with schools to continue encouraging young people to take up healthy habits.

What hypocrisy!

Is this the same Minister for Public Health and Sport who supports the Dundee SNP administration in building an £11.5m new local West End Primary School for 450 children that:

• Has no playing fields (in contravention of Government Regulations)?
• Has no outdoor sporting facilities and thus requires all exercise to be undertaken in a planned top floor Gym?
• Is on a site that is too small (which has been confirmed by the Scottish Government)?
• May even fail to meet the minimum playing area per child for school playgrounds?

We asked MSPs, on behalf of those least able to speak up for themselves, to question Shona Robson on why she and her SNP party are specifically preventing adequate playing space from being allocated for young primary children to play and exercise in in the West End of Dundee.

Mary Scanlon (Highlands and Islands) (Con) has kindly done so, in a debate on Preventing Obesity, 24 February 2010:

"I understand that new schools in Scotland are still being planned with no playing fields or outdoor sporting facilities and on sites that might fail to meet the requirement on the minimum playing area per child. I hope that the partnership with COSLA will ensure that, in future, there are adequate facilities for children."

Will Ms Robison please decide which camp she is really in?

"Excambion [exchange] of property at Blackness Road"

On Monday 22 February 2010, the City Development Committee were asked to meet "as a matter of urgency" to discuss in private, excluding the press and public, "Excambion of property at Blackness Road". We understand this refers to the city council's discussions with the Al-Maktoum Foundation to exchange part of the grounds (stages 1 and 2) of St Joseph's for the Logie site (which the council originally owned and sold to Al-Maktoum in 2004), as well as the sale of the remainder (stage 3) of St Joseph's grounds once the school building is vacated.

Papers circulated earlier last week had cancelled the Committee meeting stating, "there is no outstanding business which cannot be dealt with at a later date", and we could not understand the urgency, so we asked the city council the following questions. The response from Roger Mennie, Legal Manager, and Patricia McIlquham, Depute Chief Executive (Support Services) are included below, and West End councillors have confirmed that these may be shared with the public.

Q1. Why does this item needs to be "considered as a matter or urgency...in view of the timescales involved"?

A. The proposed terms for the excambion have only just been concluded and the parties wish to proceed as soon as possible. The report could not have been drafted in time for the usual notice to be given for the meeting [on Monday] - hence the Convener agreed that the item be considered as a matter of urgency in terms of Standing Order 17(b).

Q2. What is the nature of the "exempt information" that will be involved?

A. The exempt information is as defined in paragraph 6 (information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (other than the authority) and paragraph 9 (any terms proposed or to be proposed by or to the authority in the course of negotiation for a contract for the acquisition or disposal of property) of Part 1 of Schedule 7A to the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973.

Q3. What would be the specific reasons under which the Committee "may resolve...that the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the undernoted item"?

A. The reasons are as identified in paragraphs 6 and 9 aforementioned.

Q4. Why is this excambion being tabled before planning consent has been sought and how can it proceed when there is a school using the facilities?

A. The excambion will be conditional on planning permission being obtained. The legal documentation to be entered into will ensure that the new school is built before the transfer of ownership takes place.

Q5. What assurance can be given that the city council actually owns the land at St Joseph's and is entitled to complete the excambion? Was any part of the land gifted by people through bequests and are there any conditions that restrict the terms of its disposal?
A. The Title Deeds have been examined and there is nothing in the way of conditions or burdens which would prevent the intended sale and use of either piece of ground.

Q6. Why is the land not being offered to the open market, to ensure best value for public funds?

A. The two areas of land have been valued independently by the District Valuer having regard to open market value to ensure that the Council is receiving value for money.

We would like to take this opportunity to thank the West End councillors who took these questions forward on our behalf, and to the council officers for their prompt reply. Let's hope this is the beginning of more open dialogue with the council.

New school design obtained from Freedom of Information

On 26 January 2010, the West End Parents Committee received material from Scottish Government as a response to a Freedom of Information request. This material included early stage designs for the Logie site (June 2009) as well as detailed designs submitted by Dundee City Council to Scottish Government as a follow up to their application for dispensation in August 2009.

We confirmed with Scottish Government on 10 February 2010 that this material is now deemed to be in the public domain, and specifically that we are permitted to print/publish the site designs, which we have done below.

Note that the city council have shared the same design with the new Project Board, which convened on 27 January 2010.

Please consider these designs and make an effort to attend the West End Local Community Planning Partnership meeting on 18 February 2010, 7pm, at the Tartan Cafe

(53 Perth Road, Dundee) where the project director will give a presentation of the schools project.

Scottish Government confirms Logie site is too small for regulations

We've received confirmation that the proposals for new schools in the West End will not meet minimum government regulations governing size of site. Scottish Ministers have approved the city council's application for dispensation from the School Premises (General Requirements and Standards) (Scotland) Regulations 1967 and as amended, on the basis that:

"Scottish Ministers are content to approve, in terms of regulation 7(6), the area of the west end site for the proposed two schools and nursery. They take the view that, in all the circumstances, it would be unreasonable to apply the standards prescribed in the regulation."

The city council has also been instructed to follow HMIe recommendations:

"...to clarify its proposals for use of Victoria Park by giving a commitment to how it would dedicate part of the park for use of the two primary schools and a firmer indication of what pitches or sports areas might be laid out for their use at various times of the year. The council should also seek to reassure parents about the levels of contamination of soil at the proposed site and the level of danger from the nearby electricity sub-station. HMIE also recommends that the council shares and discusses the detailed plans for the joint campus with parents."

We look forward to receiving the council's detailed plans and glad to see that the council has been made aware that the provision of playing fields is a requirement, not a guideline, nor as the Education Convener stated in May 2009,

"there is no absolute need for them...for us to provide them with a playing field"

Some confusion at DCC regarding use of Victoria Park

Following our previous blog entry regarding the response from the Director of Leisure and Communities to Cllr Richard McCready, stating they have "no such plans" to use Victoria Park for school playing fields, we have obtained information under FOISA that suggests some confusion between departments in the city council. We asked:

(3a). Is DCC intending to use any of the following spaces - Victoria Park, Lochee Park, Magdalen Green, - for the purpose of sport and recreational activities by the proposed new West End Primary Schools (the shared campus for Park Place and St Joseph's)?

The response given under FOISA was:

"DCC is intending that Victoria Park will be used as necessary by the proposed West End Campus"

Please can someone enlighten us regarding the city council's plans for Victoria Park with respect to the proposed new West End schools?

Declining non-staff expenditure on St Joseph's school

We have received data under FOISA from Dundee City Council relating to non-staff costs, which shows a concerning year-on-year downward trend in such expenditure; this may explain the visible deterioration of the school building.

If the 2004/05 level of expenditure had continued in the following four years, St Joseph's would have received a further £170,630 of investment, which could have been spent on improving the school building. for comparison, non-staff costs for Park Place PS are also shown in the figure. This comparison is striking because St Joseph's PS is an older and larger building with 46% more pupils than Park Place PS.

Parents seek assurance that Council will maintain £20m investment in Primary and Nursery school improvements in the West End and Lochee

The West End Parents Committee would like to congratulate Dundee City Council on its successful application for Harris Academy to be included in the first tranche of funding from the Scottish Futures Trust and will receive two-thirds of the funding required for refurbishment.

However, we seek assurance that the city council will not redirect funds from primary and nursery schools projects to the secondary school estate. Under the terms of SFT funding, local councils need to pay for the remaining one-third of the required funds (rumoured to be at least £8m). Cllr Laurie Bidwell has asked on his website whether "other planned capital improvements may have to be delayed to make way for the refurbishment of Harris Academy" and if the planned projects in Whitfield, the West End and Lochee may "all need to go back down the queue".

The city council has identified a need to improve primary and nursery schools in these areas and has been given approval by Dundee councillors to invest £20m in the West End and Lochee projects. The projects are currently awaiting a decision from Fiona Hyslop MSP regarding the council's application for permission to dispense with the School Premises (Scotland) Regulations, which govern the minimum site areas and provision of playing fields.

If Scottish Ministers give their approval, the city council will be given special permission to proceed with the projects; if Scottish Ministers reject the application, then the council should make new proposals that comply with the regulations.

We sincerely hope that they will maintain their promise to the primary and nursery schools, particularly given that their own Asset Management Plan for 2008 identified St Joseph's Primary School as being in the most urgent need to improve its physical condition, since it was classed as Poor (rating 2) under the council's Condition, Suitability and Sufficiency criteria, whereas Park Place Primary and Nursery, as well as Harris Academy, were all classed as being in Satisfactory Condition (rating 3).

DCC application for dispensation from School Premises Regulations obtained under Freedom of Information

Regarding the West End Schools Project and the council's application to Scottish Ministers for dispensation from the School Premises (General Requirements and Standards) (Scotland) Regulations 1967 and as amended, the West End Parents Committee have obtained documents under Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 which the local authority have refused to publish, have refused sight of to elected councillors of the council's Education Committee, and which the Education Convener, Cllr Liz Fordyce, has claimed she considers to be a "confidential letter". The council has also refused to make the information available in response to an FOISA request. The council's formal position on this is that they are withholding the documents because:

"...it has been widely reported in the media that parents of children affected by the proposed West End schools merger are considering taking legal action against the Council, presumably by way of Judicial Review in the Court of Session. Accordingly Officers are not at liberty to disclose documents that will form part of the Council's defence to such an action, including the application made to the Scottish Government under the 1967 Regulations, at this time."

We would question what is so confidential in the application that it cannot be made public. The documents we have received under Freedom of Information suggest that the council's application includes: derogation to be granted since the regulations do not define how to interpret them with regard to a shared campus - however it is clear that other Scottish authorities have managed to deliver new shared campuses without recourse to Scottish Ministers for dispensation.

The documents we have obtained also include maps showing Victoria Park and the distance between this public space and the Logie site. We would ask if the council intends to use Victoria Park to provide playing fields in close proximity to the Logie site, as it is clear that there will be none on the site itself. We would also ask:

1. What is so secret that the Education Convener wrote in an email that she considers it to be a "confidential" letter? It has not been made available to other councillors so we would assume the council would not have given any elected member access to the documents?
2. What do parents think of the children using Victoria Park for the provision of playing fields for the new schools?
3. What do the Friends of Balgay Park think about this information?
4. What does the West End Community Council think about this?
5. What do local residents on Blackness Road and surrounding areas think about this?
6. What do teachers think about this, as they will be the ones that have to make time in the PE curriculum to walk with the children and supervise them in a public park which members of the public are entitled to visit and exercise their dogs?
7. What will the council do to ensure the provision of suitable facilities with running water, changing facilities, first aid, telephones, marked sports pitches, fenced off areas for safe play, protection from dogs, enclosed all-weather pitches?
8. What does Colin Rennie from Fields in Trust make of this, having previously cautioned the Director of Education against "seeking a waiver to obtain a level of provision less than is required by the regulations"?
9. What is the view of Sportscotland regarding the loss of the existing St Joseph's playing field when the grounds are sold to the Al-Maktoum Foundation?

Victoria Park is not zoned for this in the Dundee Local Plan and council officers stated during public consultation, when asked, that they could not site the new schools in Victoria Park for this reason. What has changed between March and now?

Council U-turn - WEPC response

Education Committee was Misled

In a press release issued yesterday, Dundee City Council has finally admitted that it does not know if the site for new schools in the West End will comply with the School Premises (Scotland) Regulations. It is now seeking special dispensation from the Scottish Government.

The council's "extensive consultation" left key questions unanswered and parents misrepresented: 81% of written representations were against the proposal, yet this was not mentioned in the post-consultation report! More importantly, report 274-2009 to the Education Committee, on the basis of which the councillors "agreed to move forward with the plans", included this answer to a “Frequently Asked Question”:

Q: "Is the site big enough and will there be adequate recreational/outdoor space?'
A. "Yes. This has been confirmed by the Scottish Government."

The Scottish Government has since verified that no such confirmation had been given - nor could it have been! Clearly that confirmation is only now being sought. Thus the Education Committee, as well as parents and church representatives, were deliberately misled on this very important matter. Indeed, the Director of Education was questioned on this matter in City Chambers and gave his assurance that the site met the regulations. He was in no position to give any such assurance as yesterday's press release now makes clear.

Clearly this brings into question the validity of the Education Committee's decision on 11 May 2009 to approve the proposal.

We have learned through Freedom of Information requests that only one school project in the entire country has needed dispensation in recent years. Indeed, Dundee primary schools built under the PPP initiative all have considerably more site area per pupil than the proposed new West End schools. Obviously the proposed shared campus with two schools and a nursery will need more space than a single school and nursery with the same total rolls. Furthermore, the regulations require a playing field on site or in close proximity, and Colin Rennie from Fields in Trust has already cautioned the Director of Education "not to treat these regulations lightly", and especially so given "the appalling levels of childhood obesity" in Scotland.

SNP administration seeks to Limit Parental Involvement in Planning of New Schools

The SNP administration, including the Convener of Education, recently voted against an amendment to widen parental involvement in the project boards created to take these proposals forward. It is therefore clear that it wants to limit the involvement of parents in the planning of these new schools.

Valuable School Site may be Lost for Future Generations

The council argues that "Dundee contains only a limited number of available spaces where schools could be located", yet this makes it all the more incredible that it is prepared to lose the site that currently accommodates St Joseph's Primary School (and until recently Bellfield Nursery). This site is sheltered, well-situated and until recently had a single large playing field, which the council turned mostly into a school/church car park (of sorts) a few years ago. The council plans to sell all of this to the Al-Maktoum Foundation without even putting it on the open market, part-exchanging some of this land for the proposed site for new schools - the so-called Logie site of the former Harris Academy Annexe on Blackness Road.

Decision awaited from Scottish Ministers

The School Premises (Scotland) Regulations are quite clear, and we have long argued that the plan cannot meet them. We are confident that Fiona Hyslop and her colleagues will safeguard our children and uphold the regulations.

Courier article: "Parents to join schools project"

As reported on p5 of The Courier, 1 June 2009 (not available online):

A well-attended public meeting yesterday gave a mandate to the West End Parents group to pursue their concerns over the planned merger of St Joseph's and Park Place Primary schools on the site of the former Harris Academy annexe.

Chairman Kiran Oza said their next step will be to meet officials of Dundee City Council education department as soon as possible to become involved in the planning process and ensure their concerns are addressed.

He said, "The council is proceeding with their plans and it is important we engage with that. At the education committee on May 11 (when councillors voted to combine the two schools and the Park Place Nursery) it was said they were setting up a number of groups, including a project group and an implementation group, and we would look to get involved with those groups."

Mr Oza said the principal issues raised from the floor of the meeting, held at Club Romano, included whether the council conformed to existing legislation in trying to do all they want at the site, and questions on parking and traffic.

"There was also concern that officials have said they would look at tarmac or concreting over the area as a solution to possible contamination at the site. People were unhappy about this as both are porous and we will need to get some advice on that", Mr Oza said.

Parents have complained the site has insufficient space for playing fields.